Taoiseach Enda Kenny hailed the vote, saying that “a majority of people in this republic have stood up for [gay people]”. He said: “In the privacy of the ballot box, the people made a public statement. With today’s vote we have disclosed who we are. We are a generous, compassionate, bold and joyful people who say yes to inclusion, yes to generosity, yes to love, yes to gay marriage.”

Only one of Ireland’s 43 constituencies voted no to same-sex marriage, and the landslide confounded pollsters and experts alike who had long predicted an urban/ rural divide; supposing metropolitan communities would be much more amenable to changing the law than communities in the countryside. It seems that levelling-out marriage laws is popular across the nation.

While Dublin’s gay area was alive with spontaneous gatherings and parties and social media rifled in messages of support, the same question arose in other quarters; what’s the point of legalising same-sex marriage? Even secular bloggers have been stumped by the question – if marriage is traditionally a religious institution, why would the gay community wish to participate in it? Also, what difference does it make these days; marriage doesn’t mean anything – you could just cohabit, etc.

The author proposes an answer: even if marriage doesn’t have the same significance as it (supposedly) did in times gone by, by making same-sex marriage legal, a nation accords equal status to all citizens. It recognises the full humanity of all of its citizens by enabling them to participate in the social institutions recognised by peers as somehow significant. It doesn’t matter if marriage doesn’t mean what it used to mean; it matters that it means the same thing for all of us.

22.May

May 22nd, 2015

California oil spill causes coastal crisis

EDITOR:

Ama Lorenz

The Santa Barbara coastline was swamped with TK gallons of crude after Tuesday’s rupture of a pipeline owned by Houston-based Plains All American.

The governor of California Jerry Brown declared the state of emergency in Santa Barbara County over the coastal oil spill.

"There continues to be a number of questions... including why there was no automatic shut-off on this relatively new pipeline, and why the early response was not more successful in halting the flow," said the Environmental Defense Center's head Owen Bailey, according to rappler.com

"This region is home to an incredible diversity of wildlife including numerous species of endangered whales and iconic coastlands that bring people from across the world to visit," he said.

Santa Barbara was before the scene of what was then the largest oil spill in US history, when in 1969 several million gallons of crude spewed into the ocean after an oil rig blowout.

21.May

May 21st, 2015

Non-virgins apparently a danger to Indonesia´s national security

EDITOR:

Nurcan Özdemir

Indonesia is home to the world's largest Muslim population and places a high value on virginity. Women seeking to join the military or marrying military officers still have to undergo the „two-finger-test“ to ensure that the hymen is intact. Human Rights Watch researchers interviewed 11 Indonesian women who were military wives and female officers. They described two fingers being used to open the vagina while one finger was placed in the anus.

According to Indonesian armed forces spokesman Major General Fuad Basya, being a virgin is a matter of national security. He insists that doctors could tell if a hymen was damaged because of an accident, disease or because of a „habit“, local media reports. If that „bad habit“ was the case, it would affect women´s mental state and they couldn´t defend the nation´s sovereignty, territory and security. Which basically means that non-virgins are a danger to Indonesia´s national safety.

Obviously, being a virgin does not make you better in any job. Also, the test is scientifically not even valid since the hymen is a thin piece of membrane attached to the vaginal wall and it´s state varies for many reasons in size, laxity or even existence - unrelated to sex. It is not that it seals like a door that can only be opened through sexual intercourse. But most important: the procedure is not only humiliating but traumatizing and an affront to women´s dignity.

This is just the latest controversy about virginity tests with the Indonesian national police facing a widespread condemnation last year for using the procedure on female applicants. The government said it would no longer require women to undergo the examination when enrolling at a college for civil servants, although it appears that police recruits are still tested. In February, after sparking a public outcry, Indonesian officials ultimately dropped a plan to require school girls of passing virginity tests in order to graduate from high school.

The new HRW report comes as global health officials gather in Bali for the World Congress on Military Medicine currently taking place in Bali.

Finally a state has offered asylum to the migrants currently floating aimlessly off the coast of Myanmar, but with little fuel and food and a long distance to travel, the chances of them reaching refuge is growing slimmer by the day.

Today the Philippines signalled it would provide asylum to those fleeing persecution in Myanmar and Bangladesh, many of whom are Rohingya people, living in but not recognised by either state.

Looking at a map, it's hard to see how the boats would actually make it as far around as the Philippines. Let's remember the migrants have been offered refuge, not rescue, so they need to get themselves there first.

3000 migrants have been rescued near Indonesia, Thailand and Malaysia, but it is now known how many more boats full of people are still floating nearby, according to the International Organisation for Migration.

One boat carrying 300 people was pushed back and forth between Malaysian and Thai waters last week, with neither state offering assistance and both refusing to provide asylum.

International Organisation for Migration spokesman Joe Lowry told press that the boat has not been heard from for three days now, so its fate is unknown.

As if the Mediterranean migration crisis wasn't enough, we now have an even more obvious display of nation states refusing to participate as global citizens by providing asylum to those seeking refuge from persecution, war and poverty.

If these twin crises tell us anything, it's that the world needs stronger legislation for protecting our most vulnerable people. Right now EU and Asian leaders are refusing to meet their international obligations, because what punishment do they face? The UNHCR Refugee Convention simply isn't enough.

At least 105,000 people have fled from Burundi over the past three weeks. An unfortunate series of events has seen the small, landlocked nation descend into absolute confusion: first, President Nkurunziza declared his intention to stand for a third term (arguing against the unconstitutionality of this decision cleverly, supported by the constitutional court); next, amid protests against the President’s decision, Major Godefroid Niyombareh declared a coup d’etat against him; finally, clashes between military factions and Nkurunziza supporters erupted across the capital, Bujumbura, with the President emerging on Friday to declare that those involved in the coup would be punished.

Meanwhile, the US had advised Burundians to leave the country. Not that Burundian citizens required any encouragement; during the escalating conflict, they began to leave in their thousands to neighbouring Tanzania and Rwanda. It might seem strange that such a relatively unspectacular set of circumstances could lead to the exodus of more than 100,000 people. But fear and memory drive these people: they remember the 13 year civil war which ended in the 2005, and the countless deaths caused by Hutu and Tutsi conflicts.

But now that they have, a full-scale humanitarian tragedy could be in the making. The locations of the makeshift refugee camps are not ideal. Not only situated on inaccessible strips of land, basic resources are not readily available for the people, and the governments of both Rwanda and Tanzania have already stated they fear outbreaks of disease are inevitable.

Furthermore, the camps are made up of women and girls mostly; estimates range that between 57-65% of the camps are majority female. So far, this is only a statistic, and nothing especially informative about the camps – but it could lead to interesting normative conclusions about why this might be. Fear of a different kind, perhaps.

The mills of EU grind slowly. As the European immigration policy is criticized by many international human rights organizations and even by EU member states for years, it took mass drownings in the Mediterranean for the EU politicians to finally react.

On Wednesday the European Comission discussed a long-term strategy to deal with migrants and refugees trying to reach the EU - the European Agenda on Migration.

A quota system: Currently five of the 28 EU member states take in about three-quarters of the asylum seekers in Europe. The Commission wants binding quotas for taking in refugees across all EU member countries. The proposal consists a formula considering the strength of the economy and unemployment rates in each country, the size of the population as well as the number of refugees they have taken in so far.

A resettlement program: An EU-wide resettlement program would take refugees from camps outside the Union. The Commission has set an overall figure of 20,000 asylum seekers over two years and the plan will be funded with €50 million in 2015 and 2016.

A Blue Card: For highly skilled migrants, a Blue Card would be available similar to the US Green Card program. The Blue Card Directive already provides such a scheme, but in its first two years, only 16,000 were issued.

Tripling the capacities and assets for the Frontex joint operations Triton and Poseidon in 2015 and 2016: The Commission adopted an amended budget for 2015 to secure more funds, for a total of €89 million. The new Triton plan will be presented by the end of May.

Launching a joint military operation in the Mediterranean to halt traffickers’ networks and smuggling.

Using emergency procedure: The Commission also plans to use Article 78.3 of the Treaty of the Functioning of the EU to establish the quota system as an “emergency” measure with accelerated legal ratification, bypassing the Parliament. This would also mean that only a qualified majority in the Council would be needed. In this way it could pass without unanimous approval of the whole Council.

Nations supporting the idea include Italy, Greece, Germany and Sweden. However there's been resistance from several Eastern European and Baltic states, as well as and especially from the UK. The just recently for five more years elected Conservative-led government has not only the well-known problems with the EU or with the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR). The Conservative party’s election success backed in part by opponents to immigration. British Home Secretary Theresa May is quoted in the The Times: "I disagree with the suggestion by the EU's high representative, Federica Mogherini, that 'no migrants' intercepted at sea should be 'sent back against their will'. We must — and will — resist calls for the mandatory relocation or resettlement of migrants across Europe. Such an approach would only strengthen the incentives for criminal gangs to keep plying their evil trade.” This opposition to sharing the numbers of refugees is far away from the community values of the EU. European Parliament President Martin Schulz said to the German broadcaster Deutschlandfunk: "The egotism of individual parts of the European Union has for the past 20 years prevented an effective and humane solution to this problem."

One may wonder, how Ms May‘s alternative solution looks like. Keeping in mind that a big portion of UK’s wealth and of other economic leading countries is based on a destructive colonial system that sucked the African continent dry. That the development aid failed. That European trade barriers for African products are still in place; that they are even extended by new planed Treaties like the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP). Seems to be right, “evil trade” is one of the reasons for people leaving their home countries under the risk of their lives.

Photo: EU Commission, Migration and Home Affairs

13.May

May 13th, 2015

Asia's own deadly migrant journey

EDITOR:

Vanessa Ellingham

While heads in Europe are firmly turned to face the ongoing tragedy of migrant deaths in the Mediterranean, another equally dangerous migration path is being carved out in Asia.

On Monday around 1000 asylum seekers came ashore on the Malaysian resort island Langkawi, mostly Rohingya people fleeing religious persecution.

The Rohingya are an indigenous, currently stateless Muslim minority who inhabit the region crossing the border between Myanmar and Bangladesh.

Four boats were rescued after three of them were abandoned by smugglers.

Hotels quickly organised food and water for the asylum seekers - but this arrival is far from an anomaly. The International Organisation for Migration (IOM) was hurrying to reach the people and provide support.

The UNHCR estimates that 25,000 people have fled the two countries by boat this year - twice the 2014 figure.

The Rohingya are persecuted thanks to a powerful anti-Muslim sentiment in the region, and have been subjected to attacks by Buddhist mobs.

The Rohingya, who number 1 million in Myanmar alone, are rejected by the government there, which refers to them as Bengali - implying that they belong in Bangladesh. But Bangladesh refuses to recognise them as well.

Attacks on Rohingya in 2012 and 2013 forced 100,000 into refugee camps.

Much like asylum seekers in Northern Africa, Rohingya are paying people smugglers to transport them to Malaysia.

But since the most recent arrivals, Malaysian officials have gone against the UN's plea for countries to keep their borders open to those seeking protection, saying they will no longer accept boats unless they are no longer seaworthy and are sinking.

This kind of policy is exactly what puts these migrants in danger as it encourages smugglers to abandon the boats and leave them to sink with helpless people on board.

As the map above from the IOM illustrates, deadly migrant journeys continue to be paved all around the world.

Pussyfooting around regional issues isn't going to save these lives - lives which must be saved, not counted. This crisis demands a global response.

11.May

May 11th, 2015

The Conservatives and the Human Rights Act

EDITOR:

Gurmeet Singh, Berlin

Voting matters: vote. Voting doesn’t matter: don’t. This neatly sums up the state of our debate on democratic deficits in industrialised States. The counter-argument to this basically runs: we don’t actually have democracy, so voting, while not unimportant, legitimises the very system that ensures its overall ineffectuality. The author (while taking the latter view) is not cynical enough to imagine that it “doesn’t matter who gets in”; they’re not all the same, no matter how in thrall they are to neoliberal forces.

Which makes it even more infuriating (for the author, at least) that on Friday, his fellow Britons voted for five more years of Conservative-led government. There’s much to be said about the voting system of the UK and its systematic biases, and about the rise of right-wing sentiment in the UK (perhaps too much has been said about the general ‘meanness’ of voters who vote for a pro-austerity, pro-privatisation, anti-public services government) but the main issue is the Conservative party’s pledge to abolish the Human Rights act.

Forget their fascination with Europe, and that upcoming in-out referendum; what they want to do, very quickly, is abolish the formal link between British courts and the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR). They want a parliamentary override in place of this link; rulings could be overturned by the British government.

The party has long been frustrated by what it sees as the ECHR’s mission creep, intruding with rulings and judgements where it has no place, typically citing egregious decisions. An example would be Former Home secretary Theresa May arguing that the Human Rights Act of 1998 had to be repealed, because it allowed an illegal immigrant to stay in the UK “because he owned a pet cat”.

Now, that example is deliberate. The Royal Court of Justice’s Judicial office shortly refuted May’s claims, saying the tribunal reached their decision because the man in question was in a serious, committed relationship with a Briton, and the fact they owned a pet cat together was one piece of evidence to demonstrate that fact.

The party may be frustrated by their inability to carry out an anti-immigration and anti-terror manifesto in the face of ECHR rulings, but what’s more frustrating for them is the ideological and cultural changes taking place in the world. The Theresa May example shows exactly what the party is angered by: the general historical trend towards greater security and rights for individuals against their governments. Yes, the Conservatives have a plan to develop a “British Bill of Rights” in place of the Human Rights Act, but how this would function is unclear. The party perceives a growing culture of risk-aversion by public authorities, coupled with a growing “political correctness” that disables people from saying and doing what they “really” think, and stops them acting from “common sense”.

While the Human Rights Act does suffer occasional abuse by litigants, which law doesn’t? The nature of many legal systems is that of precedent and refinement; no law is instantly and automatically ideal. Working towards a more cohesive law should the Conservative party’s aim, not dismantling the structures that give millions of British citizens recourse to higher justice if necessary. Perhaps people think: well, if you don’t do anything wrong, you’ve got nothing to fear – get rid of the Act. But we should all remember, dismantling a law for another also dismantles it for ourselves: it’s not just the criminals who will lose their Human Rights.

06.May

May 06th, 2015

Is 'bomb the boats' really the next best solution?

EDITOR:

Vanessa Ellingham

After last month's string of tragedies in the Mediterranean saw the migrant death toll rise to 1600 for this year alone, public outcry forced EU leaders to make an action plan.

As well as reinforcing search and rescue efforts, the plan also detailed plans to "capture and destroy vessels used by smugglers."

Leaders are now weighing up how best way to bomb the boats, or, as British Prime Minister called it, "smash the gangs" - people smugglers who are doing a roaring trade, particularly in Libya. Last year they moved 170,000 migrants across the sea, fleeing war, discrimination and poverty for a chance at a new life in Europe.

Military strategists are devising plans to use drones and explosives to blow up boats. A risky mission when you consider that the boats can only be hit when they are acquired by traffickers, and when they are empty ie. not when they are still being used by the local fishermen who often sell their boats to traffickers, and certainly not when migrants have been loaded aboard.

UN Secretary General Ban Ki Moon has said the idea is inappropriate, and that there is "no alternative" to negotiating a political truce in Libya which would stabilise the region and hopefully stem the flow of migrants.

"Fishing is an important source of income [in Libya]. If you destroy boats, you may end up affecting the general economic capacity of people."

Destroying the boats could also the EU leaders in hot water - blocking channels for seeking asylum is clearly a breach of their international obligations.

We need solutions that protect those seeking asylum, and allow them to do so safely. Bombing boats puts them at further risk, and will only force them to seek other - potentially more dangerous - methods of escape.

05.May

May 05th, 2015

Germany neglects anti-racism policy

EDITOR:

Murat Suner

The UN Anti-Racism Commission in Geneva is regularly examining how governments are putting the UN Anti-Racism Convention from 1969 into practice.

According to Amnesty International Germany's current government is showing too little effort to fight racism and discrimination.

Already in 2013 the problem of structural racism was depicted by the parliamentarian investigative committee of the Bundestag, which inspected the extreme right-wing Nationalsozialistischer Untergrund (NSU). The report documents numerous failures of German security authorities at their investigations on a series of assassinations of people of minority origin. Investigators excluded racial motives and instead suspected victims' family members as potential perpetrators. A fatal misjudgment as we know today.

So far German government also denies that police is practicing racial profiling. However, it is a fact that regular and border police conducts checks based on visual appearance. This practice is humiliating and burdening for affected persons when they are picked in public. It also destroys trust of ethnic minorities in authorities, and further fosters prejudices of people who witness these controls. As resentment against minorities is increasing Germany should rethink this discriminating approach.

Amnesty therefore demands that the German government should finally recognize that racism is a political and societal problem that cannot be narrowed to right-wing extremism. Actually, racism has pervaded the mainstream of society.

Politicians often avoid to distance themselves from racial discrimination, stereotypes and prejudices, which contribute to further stigmatize minorities.

Amnesty International's statement by Selmin Çalışkan, Secretary General on Germany's report can be read in full length here. (only available in German)